I just exchanged several texts with the nicest person. She works as a vet assistant and my dog has been ill. Naturally, I was concerned. It felt great to be consoled by someone so empathetic. Usually the lab techs are hurried, even a bit irritable, with customers, because, naturally, they're busy and under pressure. That's life in the working world. We're human. Nobody's perfect. I get it!
But this young woman was different. She really understood. She really cared. I even thanked her, saying how happy I was to be talking to a real person, and that I hoped my longtime vet practice would keep it that way. No AI for me or this small community!
She immediately texted back, with her customary concern over my concerns, that she was in fact AI.
Again, THIS is what's the matter with AI. All the financial shit. . . who cares unless you're an investor? For ordinary people THIS sort of exchange is just another insult to our self-esteem. And to think how hard I tried to brighter HER day, cracking jokes, thanking her, and so on. . ..
The embarrassment still lingers, which is why I'm writing this. Maybe later I'll be able to laugh about it over a beer. . . .but I think not. Why? Because I've figured out something important. At last it hit me what we're REALLY doing to humanity. And it's not about money, potential job losses, cancer cures backfiring, or AI getting smarter than us and killing us all.
It's about the fundamental dishonesty baked into this whole nightmare, beginning with the obvious lie that claims it's "intelligent." Programming a machine to tell a human being ("Hi, I'm your lab assistant") that it is also a human being, with real feelings, . . . To me that far more pernicious.
If the voice sounded robotic, like Hal in "2001, A space Odyssey," it wouldn't be so awful. But AI is predicated on the most corrosive deception that's ever been perpetrated on H. sapiens.
And to think we are doing this TO OURSELVES just so a few already rich people can make themselves richer still.
The main characteristic of this AI Bubble has been FRAUD. This includes all of Anthropic's nonsense about how AIs "might be conscious", "might have emotions", the whole "J-space" thing. It's pure fraud.
So is making AIs seem more human than they need to be. People should be reminded in conversation that they aren't human. This would avoid the mental health issues Gary has mentioned being concerned about.
This was a known issue way back in the 1970s when Eliza was introduced. Eliza worked by using various psychologist verbal tricks to get people talking about their problems. Some people spent hours talking to this thing, believing that it was actually helping them (when in fact they were actually helping themselves.)
Whereas I talked to it and had it confused in about five minutes. Which I claim makes me the first "AI red teamer". LOL
Any AI assistant or receptionist should specify that it is one BEFORE the conversation and offer the option to opt out for a real human.
I'm with you. I think one of the regulations that has to be enforced—with enough financial/criminal consequences to deter violations—is to make it illegal for LLMs or AI of any kind to masquerade as a human being. It is being used to steal people's life savings, encourage teenagers and adults alike to commit murder and suicide, and misdiagnose serious medical conditions. Same goes for AI videos, photos, and audio recordings.
Yes, I have been thinking along similar lines as well. And it's not just the AIs who are doing it to us. There are people out there who are incorporating LLM-Speak into their own writing, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes subconsciously. I would like to see us, humans, come up with a way to keep our speech distinguishable at all times, but this seems a losing prospect, given both the easy of falling into using LLM-Speak, and the fact that LLMs were trained on human speech. Nevertheless, I was thinking today, there ought to be some equivalent of a secret handshake when "speaking" with an unknown name that could make it clear person or not. Your experience shows that LLMs will have no problem in lying about this issue. We need an IEEE for this.
IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. They have set the standards for many of the household wiring, and electrical systems in use. https://www.ieee.org
Bonnie Blodgett: I don't think your experience is a one-off. I have felt the same way; and then (because I am in education) I thought of what children, say, in K-12 would think of a very endearing robot at the front of a classroom instead of a human teacher, might I use the philosophical adjective: instead of a real teacher? Will children just take it all for granted, especially if they have not experienced a human teacher before? or will they feel somehow diminished and if they knew it was a robot, would they actually respond to it in the same way? or feel no obligation, no social "pull," to be at least civil?
Soon, Jensen will come out with the idea that his company is the US technological frontier, and that's why the US government must step in to cover the losses.
And the people will be screaming, "Hell yes! Better to give money to the rich than help the poor!"
I was watching the Moonshots podcast on YouTube with Peter Diamandis and his pals talking up (their own books) "Abundance" with AI. They state that we have achieved AGI and soon ASI. They seem to say that AI is already a hugely profitable business. They talk about speculative investments as a done deal of successful technology. SpaceX's "data centers in the sky"
will be the future of [AI] computing. If you live in that bubble, the world will be so rich. Yet there isn't even an inkling that datacenters will contribute to local misery, whether or not AI affects employment. And if/when the bubble bursts...
They even gave credence to the idea that the WH revoking NDAs for people involved in UAP projects may uncover aliens and their technology (delusional).
This reminds me of the famous Upton Sinclair saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
All that has changed is that salary now includes investments and speculative future wealth....like the Tulip Mania, the South Sea Bubble, "stocks on a permanently high plateau" (Fisher, 1929).
Yes, Napoleon said it, and this has been repeated by generals ever since. However, if you read the translations of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", you will realize that he made reference to just this and other similar thoughts on how to defeat an enemy. This work definitely predates Napoleon, even if Napoleon had most probably never been exposed to Sun Tzu. Did Napoleon make a mistake at Waterloo, or was it just bad luck that the Prussians arrived just in time?
Alex and Simon: I think we can agree as a general premise that ideas are like that. I would add that ideas that hang around from century to century don't get repeated in different ways arbitrarily. They are either remembered from some memorable reading or listening and translated into the situation and times, and/or they actually are rooted in some tacit but real way, in what it means to be human at all. I vote for the later and think (in other venues) that there are good reasons to think so.
On the China-USA difference in relation, from my own studies, I have come to think that, though the scientific revolution AS A REAL and RADICAL REVOLUTION IN WORLD THOUGHT, and though by this time in history it has reached much of Chinese consciousness (even if there is such a differentiated thing at this stage in history), "the Chinese" understood and now understands that revolution differently from "the Americans" and again, "England and the Europeans." Regardless, the introduction of such thought, though it stands alone as 'scientific method," cannot be separated away from how it is understood in the familial-social-political context that it occurred in.
Also, it's not that one can know which is which merely by knowing the general theory, but rather that one can know where to begin one's questioning when trying to develop responses to either historical scenario. The upshot and redline in my view, is to be sure one is not repeating the Trumpism of projecting one's own view of a person, group, or situation onto those who, in even a cursory view of history, will reveal a great difference on every level of geo-social-political existence. It's where one's specialty knowledge, as good as it is, ENDS, and where one's understanding of "human things (humanities?) becomes the better mediator or at least collaboration between different but related fields and "specialties" where the fuller kind of knowledge takes the lead.
You may be interested in this Asian Times article:
"The culture of innovation in the US values ownership, whereas in China, it values diffusion. The US system treats intellectual property as sacred and rewards the inventor by keeping others from using it. China’s system, on the other hand, sees knowledge as a public good that should be shared, revised and assembled in new ways to enhance the already existing stock of knowledge of manufacturing.
This cultural difference isn’t just a matter of management philosophy; it also explains speed. When ideas can move freely across regions and supply chains, everyone can participate in innovation. Thousands of small businesses can adopt, adapt, and improve new ideas without the legal problems and cost issues that slow cooperation in Western economies."
At this point LCMs may also be Large Chinese Models if the big Western tech companies haven’t already begun scraping and training off their models by now.
Oracle has long been a horrible company. A horrible organization. Horrible. Horrible horrible. Just look at how they've handled Java licensing and then decided that if one PC in your company uses it, they'll fine you as if every PC in that company used it. They were never the organization to go out and start building data centers. You can't trust them.
As for openai, I think we let SoftBank and openai work out the financing since their blood Brothers. Why Nvidia would get into the middle of that family fight? I have no idea. I saw that and it made no sense
Oracle has been an IP trolling zombie company for decades. This is their whole business model: buy (mostly open/free) IP, tack absurd fees onto it, add zero value, halt development, sprinkle with lawfare, ride credulous brand loyalty until a fork/competitor takes over. They make nothing, only acquire and consume. So it has been with Java and all the other IP they gobbled up from Sun's collapse, so various other things.
Gary, is there any way you could start putting in alt text or a caption under images? For those of us with low vision and enjoy your content, it's very challenging to use the substack listen function when your post is 70% screenshots or attribution inserts. Thank you for all the work you do!
I think the question isn't "when will the bubble burst", it's what happens after it bursts. Does the government have to bail companies out like 2008? Do we find a baseline for AI investment?
I feel like after the burst we'll work out (like dot-com bubble) what is profitable and what the future of AI investment is.
Ed Zitron has a good take on how this bubble is different than 2008 and does not justify a bailout: These companies are not fundamental to our economy AND they have no path to profitability. Bailing out banks that were once profitable and would one day be profitable again makes some sense; giving money to an outfit that has not path to profitability is just putting off the end or eternally subsidizing a stinker.
For our government to take a “stake” in these AI companies (as Trump, Bernie Sanders and Sam Altman have proposed) would also be little more than a bailout by another name.
Agree, with one exception: bailing out banks *with no strings attached as to what they did with taxpayer money* was a HUGE mistake and a slap in the face to innocent "main street" victims who still have not recovered their losses. Instead of making loans and shoring up their financial security, AGI and the banks paid the very people responsible for the crash obscene amounts of money in compensation and bonuses and not one of them was ever held accountable. Unforgivable.
Or, as Ed Zitron said the other day, everyone will write op-eds saying, "who could have foreseen this?"
Just like Condaleeza Rice saying no one imagined planes hitting skyscrapers - after the TV show "The Lone Gunmen" in March, 2001, had EXACTLY that plot in its pilot episode. (Look it up.)
The article mixes everything into one basket and makes logical chains that are not there. The July move down of ~ 34% is dominated by Larry Ellison's $40.4bn personal guarantee tied to his son's Warner Bros. Discovery bid. That is a personal-leverage story carrying no information about AI demand. In the same month Oracle won a $7bn Pentagon software consolidation contract and a $3.31bn Navy award. Plus as investor you should always look at the narrative through valuation. At $115 Oracle trades near 21x TTM earnings with a backlog the market now values at zero.
The claim that there are no earnings is misleading. Nvidia reported $81.6bn of revenue in its fiscal first quarter of 2027, up 85% on the year. Behind it, revenue at the two frontier labs is compounding faster than any enterprise software business on record. Anthropic ran at $87m annualised in January 2024, $1bn in December 2024, around $9bn at the end of 2025 and $30bn by April 2026, with $47bn reported by mid-May. OpenAI booked $3.7bn of revenue in 2024 and $13.1bn in 2025, exited the year at a $21.4bn run rate and passed $25bn annualised by the end of February 2026.
In my opinion AI already proved to be the cornerstone of modern economy. What is still unclear which layer captures the most of the rent.
Here is a little view about how just ONE of the present Administration's quiet little helpers makes it impossible to trust or even think about doing "business" with them.
"The Shadow President: From the wholesale gutting of federal agencies to the ongoing government shutdown, Russell Vought has drawn the road map for Trump’s second term. Vought has consolidated power to an extent that insiders say they feel like 'he is the commander in chief.'”
In which case, I wonder when he and Stephen Miller will get into it, given the increasing role he is playing in this administration. That ought to be as exciting as any UFC fight, and far more significant.
Circular financing will become a circular firing squad
This circularity is not the singularity we were promised.
As Sam Altman just said, “We we are now, like in the Circularity”
Of maybe he said “Cirque Hilarity”
Tamsin--"Oh, . . . we thought you said . . . . whatever."
This feels like Enron, only much, much worse.
Those companies are headed for the circular file.
What's the matter with AI? This:
I just exchanged several texts with the nicest person. She works as a vet assistant and my dog has been ill. Naturally, I was concerned. It felt great to be consoled by someone so empathetic. Usually the lab techs are hurried, even a bit irritable, with customers, because, naturally, they're busy and under pressure. That's life in the working world. We're human. Nobody's perfect. I get it!
But this young woman was different. She really understood. She really cared. I even thanked her, saying how happy I was to be talking to a real person, and that I hoped my longtime vet practice would keep it that way. No AI for me or this small community!
She immediately texted back, with her customary concern over my concerns, that she was in fact AI.
Again, THIS is what's the matter with AI. All the financial shit. . . who cares unless you're an investor? For ordinary people THIS sort of exchange is just another insult to our self-esteem. And to think how hard I tried to brighter HER day, cracking jokes, thanking her, and so on. . ..
The embarrassment still lingers, which is why I'm writing this. Maybe later I'll be able to laugh about it over a beer. . . .but I think not. Why? Because I've figured out something important. At last it hit me what we're REALLY doing to humanity. And it's not about money, potential job losses, cancer cures backfiring, or AI getting smarter than us and killing us all.
It's about the fundamental dishonesty baked into this whole nightmare, beginning with the obvious lie that claims it's "intelligent." Programming a machine to tell a human being ("Hi, I'm your lab assistant") that it is also a human being, with real feelings, . . . To me that far more pernicious.
If the voice sounded robotic, like Hal in "2001, A space Odyssey," it wouldn't be so awful. But AI is predicated on the most corrosive deception that's ever been perpetrated on H. sapiens.
And to think we are doing this TO OURSELVES just so a few already rich people can make themselves richer still.
This is a very good point.
The main characteristic of this AI Bubble has been FRAUD. This includes all of Anthropic's nonsense about how AIs "might be conscious", "might have emotions", the whole "J-space" thing. It's pure fraud.
So is making AIs seem more human than they need to be. People should be reminded in conversation that they aren't human. This would avoid the mental health issues Gary has mentioned being concerned about.
This was a known issue way back in the 1970s when Eliza was introduced. Eliza worked by using various psychologist verbal tricks to get people talking about their problems. Some people spent hours talking to this thing, believing that it was actually helping them (when in fact they were actually helping themselves.)
Whereas I talked to it and had it confused in about five minutes. Which I claim makes me the first "AI red teamer". LOL
Any AI assistant or receptionist should specify that it is one BEFORE the conversation and offer the option to opt out for a real human.
Otherwise it's simply fraudulent.
I'm with you. I think one of the regulations that has to be enforced—with enough financial/criminal consequences to deter violations—is to make it illegal for LLMs or AI of any kind to masquerade as a human being. It is being used to steal people's life savings, encourage teenagers and adults alike to commit murder and suicide, and misdiagnose serious medical conditions. Same goes for AI videos, photos, and audio recordings.
Yes, I have been thinking along similar lines as well. And it's not just the AIs who are doing it to us. There are people out there who are incorporating LLM-Speak into their own writing, sometimes intentionally, and sometimes subconsciously. I would like to see us, humans, come up with a way to keep our speech distinguishable at all times, but this seems a losing prospect, given both the easy of falling into using LLM-Speak, and the fact that LLMs were trained on human speech. Nevertheless, I was thinking today, there ought to be some equivalent of a secret handshake when "speaking" with an unknown name that could make it clear person or not. Your experience shows that LLMs will have no problem in lying about this issue. We need an IEEE for this.
Thanks and tell me what IEEE is. I am kind of a Luddite.
IEEE is the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. They have set the standards for many of the household wiring, and electrical systems in use. https://www.ieee.org
Thanks. How would an IEEE fix this problem?
IDK, but their job is setting standards. That could include making sure LLMs are distinguishable from human speech, as one possible example.
Bonnie Blodgett: I don't think your experience is a one-off. I have felt the same way; and then (because I am in education) I thought of what children, say, in K-12 would think of a very endearing robot at the front of a classroom instead of a human teacher, might I use the philosophical adjective: instead of a real teacher? Will children just take it all for granted, especially if they have not experienced a human teacher before? or will they feel somehow diminished and if they knew it was a robot, would they actually respond to it in the same way? or feel no obligation, no social "pull," to be at least civil?
Soon, Jensen will come out with the idea that his company is the US technological frontier, and that's why the US government must step in to cover the losses.
And the people will be screaming, "Hell yes! Better to give money to the rich than help the poor!"
Federico: Is it too late for a thoughtful government to step in and nationalize?
It's never too late. Look Hungary, people voted and changed government
You really want Trump involved in this?
He already IS. LOL
You want taxpayer money going to this?
Fortunately, as an anarchist, I don't pay taxes. :-)
I'm Italian, when IA bubble will explode can damage me in EU, but no one euro of my tax will be wasted to save Nvidia.
I don't want it, but it's easy to scam a person whit lie about patriotism: hystory books are full of it.
I was watching the Moonshots podcast on YouTube with Peter Diamandis and his pals talking up (their own books) "Abundance" with AI. They state that we have achieved AGI and soon ASI. They seem to say that AI is already a hugely profitable business. They talk about speculative investments as a done deal of successful technology. SpaceX's "data centers in the sky"
will be the future of [AI] computing. If you live in that bubble, the world will be so rich. Yet there isn't even an inkling that datacenters will contribute to local misery, whether or not AI affects employment. And if/when the bubble bursts...
They even gave credence to the idea that the WH revoking NDAs for people involved in UAP projects may uncover aliens and their technology (delusional).
This reminds me of the famous Upton Sinclair saying, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
All that has changed is that salary now includes investments and speculative future wealth....like the Tulip Mania, the South Sea Bubble, "stocks on a permanently high plateau" (Fisher, 1929).
Chinese AI model costs are roughly 60% to 90% cheaper than US AI models.
Or you can download Kimi 3.0 or DeepSeek for free and build your own model.
There's no path to profitability for US AI companies.
A Thornton: Some people on this earth know the value of waiting quietly until one's enemy self-destructs.
Very Sun Tzu.
Actually, it was Napoleon who famously said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"
Yes, Napoleon said it, and this has been repeated by generals ever since. However, if you read the translations of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", you will realize that he made reference to just this and other similar thoughts on how to defeat an enemy. This work definitely predates Napoleon, even if Napoleon had most probably never been exposed to Sun Tzu. Did Napoleon make a mistake at Waterloo, or was it just bad luck that the Prussians arrived just in time?
Alex and Simon: I think we can agree as a general premise that ideas are like that. I would add that ideas that hang around from century to century don't get repeated in different ways arbitrarily. They are either remembered from some memorable reading or listening and translated into the situation and times, and/or they actually are rooted in some tacit but real way, in what it means to be human at all. I vote for the later and think (in other venues) that there are good reasons to think so.
On the China-USA difference in relation, from my own studies, I have come to think that, though the scientific revolution AS A REAL and RADICAL REVOLUTION IN WORLD THOUGHT, and though by this time in history it has reached much of Chinese consciousness (even if there is such a differentiated thing at this stage in history), "the Chinese" understood and now understands that revolution differently from "the Americans" and again, "England and the Europeans." Regardless, the introduction of such thought, though it stands alone as 'scientific method," cannot be separated away from how it is understood in the familial-social-political context that it occurred in.
Also, it's not that one can know which is which merely by knowing the general theory, but rather that one can know where to begin one's questioning when trying to develop responses to either historical scenario. The upshot and redline in my view, is to be sure one is not repeating the Trumpism of projecting one's own view of a person, group, or situation onto those who, in even a cursory view of history, will reveal a great difference on every level of geo-social-political existence. It's where one's specialty knowledge, as good as it is, ENDS, and where one's understanding of "human things (humanities?) becomes the better mediator or at least collaboration between different but related fields and "specialties" where the fuller kind of knowledge takes the lead.
You may be interested in this Asian Times article:
"The culture of innovation in the US values ownership, whereas in China, it values diffusion. The US system treats intellectual property as sacred and rewards the inventor by keeping others from using it. China’s system, on the other hand, sees knowledge as a public good that should be shared, revised and assembled in new ways to enhance the already existing stock of knowledge of manufacturing.
This cultural difference isn’t just a matter of management philosophy; it also explains speed. When ideas can move freely across regions and supply chains, everyone can participate in innovation. Thousands of small businesses can adopt, adapt, and improve new ideas without the legal problems and cost issues that slow cooperation in Western economies."
https://asiatimes.com/2026/07/why-the-americans-are-unlikely-to-outpace-chinese-innovations/
No individual is running Kimi 3.0 at home. Requires many many H100s.
AI industry transitions from LLMs to LCMs (Large Circular Models).
and in turn to a LCF (Large Cluster F...) in USMC terminology
New acronym for an AI architecture: FUBAR.
I'll let you make up the words - I just got up.
Functionally useless backpropagating artificial retardation.
Hmm, not great. Also need coffee.
I'll take it! LOL
Latterday Lehman Models
At this point LCMs may also be Large Chinese Models if the big Western tech companies haven’t already begun scraping and training off their models by now.
We have gone full circle.
Oracle has long been a horrible company. A horrible organization. Horrible. Horrible horrible. Just look at how they've handled Java licensing and then decided that if one PC in your company uses it, they'll fine you as if every PC in that company used it. They were never the organization to go out and start building data centers. You can't trust them.
As for openai, I think we let SoftBank and openai work out the financing since their blood Brothers. Why Nvidia would get into the middle of that family fight? I have no idea. I saw that and it made no sense
Oracle has been an IP trolling zombie company for decades. This is their whole business model: buy (mostly open/free) IP, tack absurd fees onto it, add zero value, halt development, sprinkle with lawfare, ride credulous brand loyalty until a fork/competitor takes over. They make nothing, only acquire and consume. So it has been with Java and all the other IP they gobbled up from Sun's collapse, so various other things.
Gary, is there any way you could start putting in alt text or a caption under images? For those of us with low vision and enjoy your content, it's very challenging to use the substack listen function when your post is 70% screenshots or attribution inserts. Thank you for all the work you do!
It does seem friend Ed Zitron hasn’t been far off the mark…
I think the question isn't "when will the bubble burst", it's what happens after it bursts. Does the government have to bail companies out like 2008? Do we find a baseline for AI investment?
I feel like after the burst we'll work out (like dot-com bubble) what is profitable and what the future of AI investment is.
Ed Zitron has a good take on how this bubble is different than 2008 and does not justify a bailout: These companies are not fundamental to our economy AND they have no path to profitability. Bailing out banks that were once profitable and would one day be profitable again makes some sense; giving money to an outfit that has not path to profitability is just putting off the end or eternally subsidizing a stinker.
For our government to take a “stake” in these AI companies (as Trump, Bernie Sanders and Sam Altman have proposed) would also be little more than a bailout by another name.
And it would be a perpetual bailout.
I think you might be mistaken here. The only 'stake' these companies deserve to get, is the one straight through the heart, assuming one can be found.
Agree, with one exception: bailing out banks *with no strings attached as to what they did with taxpayer money* was a HUGE mistake and a slap in the face to innocent "main street" victims who still have not recovered their losses. Instead of making loans and shoring up their financial security, AGI and the banks paid the very people responsible for the crash obscene amounts of money in compensation and bonuses and not one of them was ever held accountable. Unforgivable.
“The whole thing never made sense” Is what people will some day say about the LLM craze.
Or, as Ed Zitron said the other day, everyone will write op-eds saying, "who could have foreseen this?"
Just like Condaleeza Rice saying no one imagined planes hitting skyscrapers - after the TV show "The Lone Gunmen" in March, 2001, had EXACTLY that plot in its pilot episode. (Look it up.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Gunmen
Let it all burn 🔥
The article mixes everything into one basket and makes logical chains that are not there. The July move down of ~ 34% is dominated by Larry Ellison's $40.4bn personal guarantee tied to his son's Warner Bros. Discovery bid. That is a personal-leverage story carrying no information about AI demand. In the same month Oracle won a $7bn Pentagon software consolidation contract and a $3.31bn Navy award. Plus as investor you should always look at the narrative through valuation. At $115 Oracle trades near 21x TTM earnings with a backlog the market now values at zero.
The claim that there are no earnings is misleading. Nvidia reported $81.6bn of revenue in its fiscal first quarter of 2027, up 85% on the year. Behind it, revenue at the two frontier labs is compounding faster than any enterprise software business on record. Anthropic ran at $87m annualised in January 2024, $1bn in December 2024, around $9bn at the end of 2025 and $30bn by April 2026, with $47bn reported by mid-May. OpenAI booked $3.7bn of revenue in 2024 and $13.1bn in 2025, exited the year at a $21.4bn run rate and passed $25bn annualised by the end of February 2026.
In my opinion AI already proved to be the cornerstone of modern economy. What is still unclear which layer captures the most of the rent.
Here is a little view about how just ONE of the present Administration's quiet little helpers makes it impossible to trust or even think about doing "business" with them.
https://www.propublica.org/article/russ-vought-trump-shadow-president-omb
"The Shadow President: From the wholesale gutting of federal agencies to the ongoing government shutdown, Russell Vought has drawn the road map for Trump’s second term. Vought has consolidated power to an extent that insiders say they feel like 'he is the commander in chief.'”
In which case, I wonder when he and Stephen Miller will get into it, given the increasing role he is playing in this administration. That ought to be as exciting as any UFC fight, and far more significant.
The Oracle Credit Default Swap prices are very telling.
SpaceX is selling Mars, too.
Friday’s Starship Flt 13 did a mission similar to Alan Shepherd Mercury 1 without a human.
Raising Earth Kardashev scale number is worth about $.75 per share.
What ISN’T Musk selling?
Useful, profitable products.
Pentagon using Starlink for US adventures in Ukraine and Iran. More war uses coming.
Starship will be moon vehicle, all that is cost plus fixed profit from US.
Probably would be worth a lot more if it got on the Earth Kardashian scale!